September 13, 2012

His political faux pax was to offend a pundit class that wants to cede the foreign policy debate to Mr. Obama without thinking seriously about the trouble for America that is building in the world.

Faux pax? False peace? Once you get started with the silent x, it's hard to stop, isn't it? Anyway, what was Mitt's misstep — faux pas — in making a prominent statement on a day of foreign policy crisis?

Was it "awesomely awful"? — as Paul Krugman put it, sounding as if he'd like to write titles for Judith Viorst kid's books. Was it exactly normal, another day on the campaign, chewing through whatever comes up in the news, letting people see how the challenger would differ from the incumbent, who's stuck handling whatever happens as part of his job? Or was this a specific and important occasion for drawing attention to Obama's instinctive apologizing for America?

Yesterday was a key day — perhaps the day — in the campaign. Convention bounce and the Chicago teachers strike were instantly overshadowed. There was an opportunity to go for the win, and Romney took it. The media noticed, of course, and sprang into such intense, concerted action that it was obvious that they knew it was a day to be won and if the other side was going to go for the win, they had to act quickly and ensure that their guy won the day. Shock and awe, baby. Awesomely awful, indeed.

188 comments:

Right on. Win or lose, the September through November period before the presidential election is when you have the actions of the other candidate as an alternative president. It relieves the pressure in the republic as the challenger speaks for those who the current president hasn't spoken for.

The fact check is idiotic because it mischaracterizes what Romney said. This is why fact checkers are stupid; they twist Republicans and sometimes stupidly so (insisting that since Obama did not walk into a bank and steal money he could not have robbed anything, hence, a lie!)

The fact is that what Romney said is accurate: The initial embassy statement was weak willed and did not take a strong stand in defending American values while showing a willingness to accept that the offended parties had some moral ground to stand on by being offended.

It was such a horrible statement that Hillary Clinton and Obama both worked to get it deleted, thrown out, memory holed and forgotten.

Stop fighting that battle Andy, because even the leaders on your side hated the initial response.

"In fact, neither a statement by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo earlier in the day nor a later statement from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered sympathy for attackers. The statement from the Cairo Embassy had condemned anti-Muslim religious incitement before the embassy walls were breached."

AFTER the walls were breached, they REITERATED that condemnation of "anti-Muslim religious incitement" and then, later, deleted the tweet.

Your fact checker is pretty bad at their job.

Hard to be "false" when what you said was correct.

They even NOTE the deleted tweets later in that same article, debunking their entire premise.

But, instead of getting distracted, as usual, by the left-leaning posters here, let's focus on the actual topic of discussion.

Should the media have spent more time focused on Romney's response than finding out why four dead men were protected by only locked doors at a building that had been hit by an IED only a few months ago, when they reported that people were taking photos of their building and during a time there is -always- heightened security at every government installation in the world?

Andy; leave the Alinsky rules out of the discussion. You don't control the narrative. What we are seeing for ourselves is the abject failure of Obama and his strategy of bowing in the face of those who perpetually hate apostates, infidels and non-believers. The weakness is Obama's and the enemies of free people jumped in to fill the vacuum he created.

From the middle east to Chicago teacher's unions on strike Obama's appeasement is coming home to roost. Obama is under attack from all sides and he doesn't know what to do. All your water carrying for him is a sham. You are carrying empty buckets.

"Romney got a 3am call and he actied impulsively and recklessly, and lied about what happened to try to win some political points. It's his "Lehman Brothers" moment. "

Stop lying. Romney's comments were so dead to rights that Obama's administration came out and -also- said the embassy's statement was bad and walked it back. Not only that, the only "Lehman" brothers moment was when Obama insisted the private sector was doing fine.

Look, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt in every new thread, but you've burnt a lot of good will by flat out lying in the first two posts you've made. Stop being a hack and think.

The MSM has more than earned the sobriequet "presstitutes". Andy - took a look at the NPR piece. Nothing more than misdirection from the big questions around lack of security, especially on an anniversary of 9/11.

Not only that, Obama literally went to bed while his ambassador was MIA, kidnapped by terrorists. He couldn't be bothered to stand vigil and learn his fate, at least, that's what reports said yesterday. If true, the man is a failed leader.

Romney got a 3am call and he actied impulsively and recklessly, and lied about what happened to try to win some political points. It's his "Lehman Brothers" moment.

Regurgitated talking points. Also, note that the "Lehman brothers" moment was McCain stopping the campaign to do something.

Moral: NEVER. STOP. THE. CAMPAIGN.

We can feel free to ignore you now.

Stop lying. Romney's comments were so dead to rights that Obama's administration came out and -also- said the embassy's statement was bad and walked it back. Not only that, the only "Lehman" brothers moment was when Obama insisted the private sector was doing fine.

You could be cruel and say that Obama ignord his 3AM call and slept through the incident.

I don't remember any Dems foregoing foreign policy issues in the run up to 2008. Here is part of an article at the time.

State Department officials said Thursday they made it quite clear they did not want Pelosi to visit Syria, a nation that is listed as a state sponsor of terror and is home to terror group Hezbollah, which started a low-grade war with Israel last summer.

Pelosi is the highest ranking U.S. official to go to Syria since former Secretary of State Colin Powell visited the nation in 2003. Defying the White House's Middle East policy by meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, Pelosi said, "The road to Damascus is a road to peace

... Andy, you do know that Reuters is ignoring that the embassy re-issued its statement later in the day to stand by its initial statement, right?

Which is what Romney was responding to?

When Reuters can't get the chronology right, and you can't do basic research, I can be a bit more forgiving of your ignorance of current events. Try and do more research though, it makes it easier to discuss things.

"But the embassy statement was issued several hours before the protests in Egypt began, according to Reuters journalists in Cairo. In an apparent attempt to head off any demonstrations, the embassy posted the statement on its Facebook page on Tuesday morning local time."

They tweeted that they stood by their initial tweet AFTER the walls were breached.

Can you make your "fact checkers" remotely difficult to not smack down as nonsense?

That's an excellent catch too, I went right past that faux pax faux pas thing without even noticing it and yet I'm the guy who is completely stopped when presented with 'sugary' in place of 'surgery' in ASL, even when a knife is shown. Boy, was that embarrassing.

Romney couldn't have said anything to make the press or the AndyRs of the world happy. If he makes a strong statement, he's interfering or using the wrong tone. If he makes a weak statement, then he's a weak weakling who can't handle the job. If he says nothing, then he doesn't dare tackle tough issues.

They tweeted that they stood by their initial tweet AFTER the walls were breached.

There is no point in trying to correct the gay boy. He is not that bright and easily misled and it is much easier to swallow a lie then engage in a critical analysis of Obama's foreign policy failures.

Isn't this a pretty good indication of how "gutsy" the OBL raid really was for Obama?

We know how the press would have treated him had it failed (and we heard about it)- just as they are treating him now. Obama would have been protected, and critics would have been told to shut up in this time of terrible loss of life.

Jeez could even one MSM reporter think it might be reasonable to ask the president or Jay Carney "did you put in place more rigorous security precautions at all embassies on the anniversary of 9/11?" and "if not, why didn't you think that was necessary?"

Bucks only stop on Republican president's desks apparently. Maybe this is another inherited problem. Look, I've been pretty relaxed in my criticism of Obama.

This though? If he really -did- sleep through the attacks? He's a failure as a leader, and he let his people down. Even if he could not have done anything for them, you don't go to sleep while your people are in danger.

I think I hold team loyalty as an extreme virtue, and so this is actually offensive to me, as opposed to economic and policy debate where it simply is "We disagree on the best way to reach our mutual goals."

There are a few Obama screw-ups: Solyndra, "shovel-ready", Fast and Furious, etc. Now that Benghazi is on the list, do any of the people on the left who thought Hillary Clinton, Mrs. "3:00 AM", would have been a better choice? She was Obama's person in charge.

Early Tuesday morning, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo got word that demonstrators, angry about an anti-Islamic film produced in the U.S., were gathering in the streets. It issued a safety warning to Americans: Stay out of the streets.

As the situation became increasingly tense— but while the crowd was still peaceful — the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement condemning what it called "religious incitement" as it worked to calm the tensions.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," the embassy said at 6:18 a.m. EDT, shortly after noon Cairo time.

That's the statement that Romney referred to as the administration's "first response." By Wednesday morning, the Republican nominee was at a podium in Jacksonville, Fla., saying that statement "appeared to be an apology for American principles." It's a theme Romney has hammered against Obama throughout his presidential campaign, including in his campaign book, "No Apology."

But the embassy's condemnation of religious incitement hardly amounted to an apology.

In response to an angry mob creating a tense situation outside their walls, the embassy issued a statement condemning the 1st Amendment. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, our embassies speak for our administration abroad. Like it or not, until it was retracted, that condemnation of one of our most basic rights was the official position of the Obama administration. That Obama has now agreed that the embassy was wrong, and then essentially repeated the embassy's position ("We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.") is just icing on the cake. On the question of whether Romney lied in his statement about the embassy, the obvious answer is no.

I am so tired of "fact checkers" who neither know the facts or check them--and I suspect most Americans dont give a shit about fact checkers--they have oversaturated the media and have marginalized themselves. No one gives a shit about "fact checkers."

Matthew, I think we all saw that. And as we read the article we all thought, well yes, but then so what? What punishment can we expect to see? None. And so skipped down to comments and every single one said exactly that. But, from the story she can either be fired or pay a hefty fine and that suited me ... or be completely excused. !

I don't really get the "Lehman Brothers" moment thing. Lehman was allowed to collapse even as the government facilitated relief for Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch. What does that have to do with Romney criticizing the communications of Obama's embassy in Cairo?

I am so tired of "fact checkers" who neither know the facts or check them--and I suspect most Americans dont give a shit about fact checkers--they have oversaturated the media and have marginalized themselves. No one gives a shit about "fact checkers."

I think the real irony here is that news organizations didn't used to need to specifically publish fact checkers. News organizations just used to be expected to report facts. The very fact that a news organization can't just run a story without putting a banner above it calling it factual speaks volumes about how much faith they expect anybody to put in their veracity. And I suspect that most people have been quick to catch on that just calling something fact checking doesn't make it any more accurate than the rest of the propaganda that news organizations distribute.

And as predicted, Andy goes off shift and lo and behold here is machine with his approved talking points. This blog is certainly more predictable than the foreign policy situation that Mr Obama has created and now has to face two months before the election.

Andy, you disappoint me. Did you even read the NPR "fact check"? Clearly not, because, if you had, you'd have realized that their headline was not true. Following what's apparently standard fact-check template now, the truth is conveniently placed at the end of the piece:

"The embassy did use its Twitter account to say, at about 8 p.m. EDT, that "this morning's condemnation ... still stands." The tweet was later deleted."

Just because the Embassy tried to stuff it down the memory hole doesn't actually make it not have happened.

And at 10:09pm Romney responded with his criticism. Responding to the original tweet (which the Administration disowned the next day) which the Embassy just said "still stands", even after the oh-so-peacful protestors turned violent.

Followed by Administration officials, who agreed with every single thing Romney said.

Is it a lie if your deep emotional desires override the thinking part of your brain?

In this case, Andy really wants Romney to lie, and perhaps the meanings of words become crossed in his mind, due to the emotional part of his brain overriding the thinking part.

Or maybe he is merely projecting. I get the feeling liars tend to think others lie. Same thing happens in marriages. Cheaters think their husbands/wives are cheating, and those who would not think to expect the same from their spouse.

Other than a few people here, I think most agree that the media are flat-out in the tank for the O administration. This stuff is going to get worse from here to November, and if Romney wins, every time he takes a dump there will be someone reporting that he's hurting the environment.

That said, what is to be done? If I were Romney's press secretary, I wouldn't speak to ANYONE in the mainstream press at all. In the press briefing room, I'd either kick out these sycophants, or never answer any of their questions (maybe only answer Fox's questions). And I'd unequivocally state to the Fox interviewer that the other media aren't fair and that's why I'm black them out.

How else to tackle this issue? We can't have a free country if the press is choosing sides.

Ironically, it's a misstatement to call a misstatement a lie. It's only a lie when you know you're getting it wrong and you proceed to do so with intent.

One of the rules of journalism is you are never allowed to say that a politician is lying. In many ways, knowing that Romney was being intentionally misleading makes him look better. If it really was a misstatement, then it just means he is clueless.

First there was the fiasco with his foreign policy adviser that Romney backed down over rather than defend the man. Then his disastrous trip abroad. Now this. Romney has no foreign policy experience, and it shows.

If only Romney had kept on the gay foreign policy spokesperson, who everyone held in high esteem, maybe this whole mess could have been avoided. Kind of ironic, that.

Not quite. Almost five hours after the Cairo Embassy issued its statement — at about 11:15 a.m. EDT — Associated Press images show protesters atop the Cairo Embassy's walls. At about 11:33 a.m. EDT, the American flag there had come down.

The embassy did use its Twitter account to say, at about 8 p.m. EDT, that "this morning's condemnation ... still stands." The tweet was later deleted.

Help me here, the embassy reiterated it's statement 8.5 hours after the embassy walls were breached and the flag torn down and some two hours before Romney criticized their statement?

I posit the media is in the tank for Obama but I still think this was a huge problem for Romney. Without all the facts, he jumped to a conclusion and tried to score political points. That's hardly presidential behavior.

As someone pointed out earlier today, Reagan, in 1980, refused to hit Carter on Iran, even after the failed hostage rescue. How far the GOP has fallen.

I make silly mistakes like that when I scribble a blog comment in five or ten minutes. But I am not writing for millions of people to read in a major, global venue with several fact and grammar checkers behind me to correct my obvious mistakes.

"Faux pax" is bad enough, but what do we do with concerted propaganda efforts to destroy a Republican candidate presented as facts?

Meanwhile, an ambassador and several other Americans are dead, an American embassy is apologizing to Muslim fanatics for American freedom of speech, it appears that that this is an al-Qaeda operation on 9-11, and the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief are scrambling around trying to avoid responsibility.

But yes, the real story is Romney's outrageous behavior saying things that no one really disagrees with. What's more, Romney's campaign is now toast, they gleefully tell me.

"If only Romney had kept on the gay foreign policy spokesperson, who everyone held in high esteem, maybe this whole mess could have been avoided."

-- Actually, the problem was that people on the left were saying all sorts of vile things about how he was a turn coat, not a "real" gay man, etc., so on, so forth. The left went into a frothing hatred of the man that he became a distraction from the campaign because he wasn't a True Scotsman.

Also: Romney's statement is completely true. So true, in fact, that Obama agreed with it, ultimately forcing the embassy to remove the offending message.

That's what is so hard for you to grasp. Romney did not lie; he told the truth. But, since you enter with the assumption: He must've lied! You can't ever see it.

I think it strains credulity to believe that the embassy was not in contact with higher ups at the State Dept if not the White House 8.5 hours after the embassy walls were breached and, hence, when that morning's apologetic statement was reiterated.

Romney is inside Obama's OODA Loop. The Obama Administration's first impulse was to criticize Romney. They didn't get around to criticizing the embassy attacks until hours later, and they did a poor job of that. Obama is toast.

I Callahan, if Romney were a little better on his feet speaking-wise, he could very well use these next two months to get the press to fully come out of the closet as the biased bitches and bastards that they are. I wouldn't avoid them if I were him. The public will catch on after watching them constantly badger him about everything. In the process, he is free to say what he wants, as nothing he will say can satisfy them.

The media was slightly biased through the mid to late 90s. In early 2000s there was an internal struggle for balance to come through again. Until about 2007, at which point the floodgates really opened.

This blog post is barely readable. But it , and most comments, seem to miss something vital. Romney attacked Obama about a statement Obama had not yet made about events that had not yet happened. Check THOSE facts! if you dare. Some people do not want to see the light.

Ahhh--a new poster emerges. Offering to show us the light. Welcome to Althouse, Miridunn. Hope to see you around some more. The blog is reasonably inclusive and tolerates alternative opinions fairly well.

if Romney were a little better on his feet speaking-wise, he could very well use these next two months to get the press to fully come out of the closet as the biased bitches and bastards that they are. I wouldn't avoid them if I were him. The public will catch on after watching them constantly badger him about everything. In the process, he is free to say what he wants, as nothing he will say can satisfy them.

Agreed. I think Romney comes off very well under press interrogation/ attack-- strong, calm, in control, presidential. In stark contrast to an extremely thin-skinned POTUS who subjects himself to softball press conferences only once in a blue moon.

And the more Americans hear from Romney himself directly, the less they're relying on the dizzyingly spinning MSM's interpretation/ narrative of what Romney says.

The absurdity of a day like yesterday, with a full-on international crisis going on, and Mitt Romney-- candidate Romney, not the POTUS-- fielding tough questions from the press. Unreal.

EDH: my thought is that Mr Romney's post drew blood and forced the Obama clowns to go into defense--rather like Mr Ryan's standing with Mayor Emmanuel on the teacher's strike. I do admit to a Republican bias, but it does seem to me the RR team is doing quite well. They dont have to appeal to the press, which they will never have--they do have to appeal the electorate. And so far they do seem to be doing OK

I just saw Hillary Clinton going on live about how the video in question, the supposed pretext for the murder of our people, was rully, rully bad.

What kind of an idiot runs our State Department? She's a lawyer. She must have at least read the first amendment at some point. Does she understand the concept?

Obama, Hillary, say this: "We Americans have the freedom to say what we want, when we want, where we want, because that is our creed. If you don't like it, too bad for you. We've got a military ready to back up our freedoms."

Clinton betrayed our creed by even mentioning this stupid video pretext. What an asshole!

Miridunn, you've got it wrong in so many ways. To start, Romney attacked the statement of the Embassy tweet (written by someone in the US). For clarity's sake, I suppose you should also mention that both the President and HRC quickly disavowed the tweet after taking Romney's lead.

People are aware more than one embassy was hit, right? I think that might be causing the confusion. The murders happened in Libya, which Romney was not talking about. The statement that Obama and Romney both agreed was bad came from Egypt, which ultimately was forced to remove their statement by the President because, as Romney pointed out, it was bad.

If only Romney had kept on the gay foreign policy spokesperson, who everyone held in high esteem, maybe this whole mess could have been avoided. Kind of ironic, that.

One minute its a film insulting Muslims... then somebody said no, it was a coordinated attack possibly AlQaeda on the anniversary of 9/11... now Andy says that it was Romney's firing his gay spokesman that angered Muslims and got an American killed.

Carter 2.0 Electric Boogaloo is the best way to sum up obama's term at this point. It is a dangerous time to be a U.S serviceman now, as the jug eared jesus will make damn sure he doesn't look week to prop up his saggin presidency. Very scary indeed.

As someone pointed out earlier today, Reagan, in 1980, refused to hit Carter on Iran, even after the failed hostage rescue. How far the GOP has fallen.

I sense a moby here.

The approved term is "concerned Christian Conservative," Inspector. Usually followed up by a lament that their family has voted GOP since Chester Alan Arthur, but today's Republican party is just too, too, extreme. Seminar callers, as Rush says.

I Callahan, if Romney were a little better on his feet speaking-wise, he could very well use these next two months to get the press to fully come out of the closet as the biased bitches and bastards that they are. I wouldn't avoid them if I were him. The public will catch on after watching them constantly badger him about everything. In the process, he is free to say what he wants, as nothing he will say can satisfy them.

Joe, a poster at Protein Wisdom says that at his next presser, Romney should have an empty chair front and center and tell three-quarters of the press that they can go home, since the chair is for the head of the DNC.

Andy R. said... First there was the fiasco with his foreign policy adviser that Romney backed down over rather than defend the man. Then his disastrous trip abroad. Now this. Romney has no foreign policy experience, and it shows.

Only someone as comically stupid as you would say that after 3 embassy's come under attack and the death of an Ambassador takes place.

The Romney camp has acknowledged that the Romney statement came before he had any knowledge that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and two other staffers had also been killed.

How do those deaths in any way invalidate his statement? They don't. On the contrary! Those deaths only magnify the disgrace of the administration response (condemning and apologizing for "abuse of free speech") that Romney criticized.

What Romney offended against was good sense and good judgment. He should have just shut up and waited to respond to the official White House and State Department statements. Instead, he wanted to make his moronic "no-apology-for-America" point. Regardless of what's written on this blog, Romney has lost the respect of the American foreign policy establishment.

What Romney offended against was good sense and good judgment. He should have just shut up and waited to respond to the official White House and State Department statements. Instead, he wanted to make his moronic "no-apology-for-America" point. Regardless of what's written on this blog, Romney has lost the respect of the American foreign policy establishment.

I seem to be living 1980 all over again. The year I joined the navy this same exact shit is happening again with a President even weaker than Carter. Sir Winston summed it up:

There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline Books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong -these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

I seem to be living 1980 all over again. The year I joined the navy this same exact shit is happening again with a President even weaker than Carter. Sir Winston summed it up:

There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline Books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong -these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.

The MSM - and the Democrats - are criticizing Romney for saying things he did not say.

I heard the President's response to the events in Cairo, and it sounded flat and rather petulant that he was obliged to speak to this minor matter when he was so busy campaigning.

But violent attacks on United States embassies and legations are not minor matters, and certainly not when there are several more or less simultaneous attacks that appear to have at least some coordination with possible nation-state involvement.

What Romney offended against was good sense and good judgment. He should have just shut up and waited to respond to the official White House and State Department statements.

Romney did Obama a favor. He clued Obama in that the "we work really hard not to offend Mulims please don't hurt us" line is a loser.So Obama dropped it. Imagine if he'd taken that route yesterday, in an address to the nation.

Damn--I owe stonetools an apology--I thought for sure he said stonestools--for which duclolax works very well.. Now we have mini whats her name and stonestools on board--what are the chances they will be here in the future? How much do these douchebags get paid to troll sites?

If I may posit a thought: when you deal with the middle east Muslims, you are dealing with primarily a tribal and pride culture. Strength is respected but feckless is not. One might also suspect that Vladimir Putin is taking note. As the Romans said--we dont care if they love us, as long as they fear us. It is really time to put fear back into the mix.

All you need to learn about "fact check"ing in 1 easy lesson. President Obama never went to Israel. Fact Check: True but basically False.

About politicians "lying" yes you are right, all politicians lie. The problem you engender is that you only point out 1 sides lies. I don't trust ANY politician to tell the truth. Why should I? They're salesmen. They are selling themselves.(it's called whoring)

If you could get outraged by both sides lying to you, it would help your cause immensely.(same for everybody)

This is why I gave up TV news, even FOX. I can get more honest coverage by surfing multiple websites, and actually seeing what happens. As a disclaimer, I do watch the occasional news commentary for the entertainment value...O'reilly, Daily show, Hannity, Colbert. It's an innocent diversion if you don't take them seriously. Much like pro-wrestling. For breaking news I will watch Shep Smith, but only in emergencies.

Also, if the Osama raid had turned bad does anyone really doubt that Panetta would have been thrown under the bus? From the behind the scene stories floating around you've got to give Leon "props" for doing the right thing, and not CYA, which is SOP for DC.

Andy R, shiloh and the machine have Obama's dick so far up their ass they can't even see straight from the fecal matter build up. Notice their gripe is what Romney said about an absolutely assinine tweet from the Cairo Embassy. Not about the tweet itself which vetted by none other that that brilliant Secretary Of State H. Rodham Clinton and her boss (or is he her bitch?). Of course it's too much to expect the competence level of a 8 year old from Obama and H. Rodham Clinton to actually foresee a possibility of attacks on our consulates and embassies on a date that attracts muzzie terrorists like flies to manure. Hillary forget about any dreams of getting elected president in 2016. She also hit the snooze button on the alarm clock when it ranged at 3am. And where was our Pseudo-President while this was going on? In Vegas, fundraising, that following his radio 'interview' with the Pimp With A Limp.

Professional prostitutes have higher ethical standards than these rank amateurs.

Obama:We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Please note that his choice of words for those who denigrate religious beliefs is the same for the brutal acts:

"reject"

That's it. He won't seek justice for the dead. He won't punish those who committed an act of war. By his very word choice, he demonstrates that those who engage in free speech are equal to those who attack an embassy and kill an ambassador.

He should never have been elected President.

He certainly should not be re-elected.

President Obama should withdraw from the election and resign now. He is a disgrace to his Office.

Wow. I don't come to this site often, but the feelings of victimization and self pity that are evidenced are just off the scale. Guys (and gals), what is so hard to understand that when there is an emergency and people's lives are in danger you don't go off half cocked and create extra work for those responsible. Doing so just possibly creates further danger and, oh yeah, possibly encourages the terrorists.

"We're all Osama, Obama!!" The Al Qaeda backed mob chanted and shouted over and over again, as they burned and destroyed and murdered. THEY WERE SENDING A MESSAGE TO BARACK OBAMA PERSONALLY-A leader of the mob in Cairo stepped up to the cheers of protestors to say to Arab media gathered:"We are not afraid of you, we hold you and now all America in utter contempt, and we will with great pleasure kill anything American every chance we get".

This is how I see it. The U.S. was attacked on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 by Muslims affiliated with, or at least very sympathetic with al Qaeda. The Administration response to the attack on what is officially U.S. soil in two countries and the murder of four U.S. government employees, including an ambassador, was conciliatory to the attackers, at least until they figured out that Romney had them in a box, at which time, they somewhat switched.

And, yes, it does remind me quite a bit of Carter's last months, with the U.S. embarrassed by his weakness in responding to the takeover of our embassy there (by, among other, the current president of Iran).

Democratic Presidents, from Carter on, have seemed to be quite weak in expressing American resolve, and, as a result, have, I would suggest, greatly emboldened our enemies. And, a lot of people believe that the apparent weaknesses of both Carter and Clinton in responding to Islamic attacks is what emboldened al Quaeda to attack us on 9/11/01.

Paul Krugman teaches at Princeton and won the Nobel prize. Who are you? An unknown professor in Wisconsin for Pete's sake.

In a study published in the Econ Journal Watch, a peer reviewed publication, Krugman was found to be the most partisan - read that "political hack" - among 17 prominent economists whose work was surveyed. That is to say his opinions varied widely depending on which party held the White House.

Althouse is hardly "unknown" and as a Constitutional Law specialist is arguably better equipped than Krugman to reflect on politics and foreign policy.

Well, the Professor nailed me for putting the wrong comment on the wrong topic. I messed up there, and I don't have the brilliant prose stored, and maybe this is still the wrong topic, but the essence of it was this:

Our Secretary of State represents our government and our President, and she (Hillary Clinton) said today that that dumb YouTube video was a bad thing that she didn't like (but she doesn't think killing Americans is an OK response).

She is a buffoon. She should, of course, have said "WE SAY WHAT WE WANT, WHEN WE WANT TO, BECAUSE THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY. I, HILLARY CLINTON, APOLOGIZE FOR NOTHING, NOR DOES MY BOSS, BARACK OBAMA, BECAUSE YOU IDIOTS ARE TOO NAMBY-PAMBY TO APPRECIATE OUR MOST FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM. SUCK IT, LOSERS."